I am inclined to recap and update something I’ve said of Thanksgiving in the past. I like the idea of Thanksgiving, frankly. I have been fortunate in many ways; some of it is pure luck, but a very large amount of the good in my life comes from other people.
First among them, and no surprise to people that know me, is my Lady Anne. She makes it worthwhile. My Lady is an utter delight, in so many ways, and I recognize how lucky I am in this.
And you, my friends in this electronic world, many of whom I have been privileged to meet and earn the friendship of directly — you form an important part of my life, and an important way in which I have been extremely fortunate.
We have different ideas, sometimes, on issues from science to politics, but while so many such blogs fall into atrocious namecalling and puerile bahaviors, you here have made this a place where differences can be expressed and offered in a very civil discourse.
I have been fortune indeed. Thank you — and Happy Thanksgiving — to you all.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
This one, the German Roentgen Satellite, or ROSAT, is anticipated to have more than one tone of material make it through re-entry, including a large, heat-resistant mirror system.
It’s expected to come down this weekend, but the time has yet to be narrowed down.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
From my article here. Wikipedia’s article about A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court gets details of the plot rather wrong. But this bit is interesting: these are stories written about people transported to the past with modern knowledge, but who didn’t succeed it putting it to use:
This analysis was done at the blog DeafRepublicans, and is quite interesting:
The Drudge Poll on the Debate:
The MSNBC Poll on the Debate:
As subsequent events have shown, the original analysis was correct. She DID ask him not to use it.
Her objection: It was being used by Obama to make it seem that she was against the war effort. She wants it to be “successful.”
It’s even more starkly clear that SSgt. Jopek supports the Iraq war effort, and he was personally over there doing it. His fear was that we would leave without finishing the job, and he spoke to this eloquently.
But, Tracy Jopek is an Obama supporter, and as was originally said she doesn’t want to “sabotage his campaign” by complaining.
There’s almost a second story under the surface:
She said she was “satisfied” with his handling of it during the debate, but a number of places rewrote and propagated this as “ecstatic” in quotes. There was no such quote, and it is contrary to the tone she has in the quoted phrases. (See previous entries under the “Bracelet” tag.)
So — which Obama supporter in the media decided that “satisfied” wasn’t good enough, and decided to play up the headline?
Of interest, many of the headlines that were posted with “ecstatic” (and they showed up on Google News this way) were subsequently changed to “satisfied”. In other words, they know they’re being watched.
Also, the first AP report was relatively mild — and it confirmed my original assertions that she DID ask him to stop using the bracelet. It gave other information that was somewhat damaging to Barack Obama, while trying to be complementary. The very first sentence confirmed my point:
After Tracy Jopek gave Sen. Barack Obama a bracelet in honor of her son who was killed in Iraq, she asked Obama not to mention the bracelet on the campaign trail.
This was at 7:37 Eastern time.
But about 90 minutes later, the story reappears, re-written; much of the “damage” is removed and it comes out much more strongly in support of Obama. The tone of the second article is very different from the first in terms of the quotes from Tracy Jopek.
Did the Obama campaign complain to Associated Press?
Tracy Jopek is not the villain here; I think she is honestly doing what she thinks is best, and the original quotes from her certainly portray a thoughtful and fair-minded person.
I cannot ask her to call the Associated Press on the apparent stunt, here, as this would indeed hurt her candidate. But the AP is once again, from the evidence I see, harming journalism in favor of advocacy.
===|==============/ Level Head